RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Institute of Oriental Manuscripts (Asiatic Museum) WRITTEN MONUMENTS OF THE ORIENT Founded in 2014 Issued biannually 2017 (1) Editors Irina Popova, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, St. Petersburg (Editor-in-Chief) Svetlana Anikeeva, Vostochnaya Literatura Publisher, Moscow Tatiana Pang, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, St. Petersburg Elena Tanonova, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, St. Petersburg Published with the support Editorial Board of St. Petersburg State Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, Turfanforschung, University Alumni Association BBAW, Berlin and Irina and Yuri Vasilyev Michael Friedrich, Universität Hamburg Foundation Yuly Ioannesyan, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, St. Petersburg Karashima Seishi, Soka University, Tokyo Aliy Kolesnikov, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, St. Petersburg Alexander Kudelin, Institute of World Literature, RAS, Moscow Karine Marandzhyan, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, St. Petersburg Nie Hongyin, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, CASS, Beijing Georges-Jean Pinault, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris Stanislav Prozorov, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, St. Petersburg Rong Xinjiang, Peking University Nicholas Sims-Williams, University of London Takata Tokio, Kyoto University Stephen F. Teiser, Princeton University Hartmut Walravens, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Nataliya Yakhontova, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS, St. Petersburg Nauka Peter Zieme, Freie Universität Berlin Vostochnaya Literatura 2017 IN THIS ISSUE Olga Chunakova, Federico Dragoni, Enrico Morano A forgotten Manichaean Sogdian bifolio in Sogdian script 3 Adam Benkato Sogdian letter fragments in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, St. Petersburg 26 Peter Zieme An Embryonic Saint. Interpretation of an Old Uighur Fragment in the Serindia Collection at the IOM, RAS 40 Alexander Zorin Fragments of Tibetan Texts Refound at the Dunhuang Collection Kept at the IOM, RAS: Eleven Identified Fragments of Buddhist Canonical Texts 49 Hartmut Walravens Symbolism of sovereignty in the context of the Dzungar campaigns of the Qianlong emperor 73 Reviews Joseph F. O’Callaghan. The Last Crusade in the West: Castile and the Conquest of Granada. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014, by Anastasia Stepanova 91 Catalogue of Japanese Manuscripts and Rare Books. Merete Pedersen. The Royal Library, Copenhagen, Denmark. Catalogue of Oriental Manuscripts, Xylographs, etc. in Danish Collections (COMDC), by Karine Marandjian 95 Anton Schiefner (1817–1879) und seine indologischen Freunde: seine Briefe an die Indologen Albrecht Weber (1825–1901), Rudolf Roth (1821–1895) und William D. Whitney (1827–1894) sowie den Indogermanisten Adalbert Kuhn (1812–1881) / Hartmut Walravens, Agnes Stache-Weiske [editors]. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2015. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte, 868. Bd.; Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, Nr. 89), by Alexander Zorin 98 26 Adam Benkato Sogdian Letter Fragments in the IOM, RAS Abstract: Among the Sogdian fragments from Turfan preserved in the IOM collections are a handful of epistolary texts. A new edition of these fragments is presented here as part of the author’s ongoing project on Sogdian letters from Turfan. Key words: Sogdian, epistolary texts, Turfan, Manichaeism Sogdian letter fragments An important part of the Sogdian corpora which have come down to us are epistolary texts. Indeed, both the earliest substantial Sogdian documents, the so-called ‘Ancient Letters’ (dating from around the early 300s CE and found in modern-day western China), and the only substantial corpus found in Sogdiana itself, the Mugh documents (dating from around the 720s CE), consist largely of letters. The Turfan collections around the world also preserve a number of epistolary texts, mostly fragmentary: the long texts from Bezeklik are the most recent substantial Sogdian texts to have been found, while smaller fragments are located in the Berlin Turfan collection, in Japanese collections, and in the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, St. Peters- burg. Finally, eight epistolary fragments were recently found in Khotan. Altogether, these texts give us a look at Sogdian epistolary traditions over some seven centuries. The edition and analysis of even fragmentary texts can contribute to efforts to reconstruct parts of those traditions — and eventually connect them with those of Central Asia and Iran more broadly. The fragments of the IOM The exploration of ruins in the Turfan oasis, and subsequent obtaining of cultural artefacts, was in fact initiated by Russian scholars in the final © Adam Benkato 27 decades of the 1800s. Although by the turn of the century state funding for large-scale expeditions was not available, several Russian scholars and diplomats in Central Asia were nevertheless able to obtain manuscripts and objects, often through purchase from local people. Some of the letter frag- ments forming the subject of this paper seem to have been obtained in such a way: the first three in the table below belong to those fragments collected (probably before 1909) by the Russian council in Urumqi, Nikolai Krotkov. The last two fragments, however, were obtained by Sergei Oldenburg during his 1909–10 expedition in the northern Tarim Basin.1 It is however not possible to state with more precision the locations from which these fragments may have been obtained.2 Reference New shelf Old shelf Sogdian Edition Description number number number text SI Kr VI/706 Ragoza L44 SI 5387 26×25.5 cm 18 lines No. 3453 1980, 36 SI Kr IV/217 Ragoza L27 SI 1432 13.2×12.5 cm 9 lines No. 2963 1980, 25–6 SI Kr IV/806 Ragoza L63 SI 5532 7.5×11.2 cm 6 lines No. 3553 1980, 44–5 SI O/124 Ragoza L111 SI 4788 8×7 cm 5 lines No. 4247 1980, 73 SI O/134 Ragoza L118 SI 4797 8.5×27 cm 5 lines No. 4257 1980, 76 The above letter fragments were initially edited by A.N. Ragoza in her Sogdiiskie fragmenty central’noaziatskogo sobraniia Instituta vostokovede- niia (“Sogdian fragments in the Central Asian collection of the Institute of Oriental Studies”, RAGOZA 1980), the editio princeps of the Sogdian fragments which were known at the time in the Institute of Oriental Manu- scripts (IOM). However, Ragoza’s edition contained a number of editorial and linguistic problems, several of which were pointed out by Sims- Williams (1981) in a review. Furthermore, the photographs included in that volume were not of good enough quality to facilitate further work. Thanks to 1 RAGOZA 1980, 7–8 2 For a useful summary of Russian work in Turfan and other oases, along with many references, see Sundermann’s entry in the Encyclopedia Iranica (SUNDERMANN 2004). For more details about the Sogdian fragments in particular and how they were obtained, see RAGOZA 1980, 4–11. 28 the new, high resolution photographs kindly provided to me by the IOM, a completely new edition of these fragments will be presented here, ordered according to the length and importance of their content. Edition of Fragments3 L44 The most substantial of the letter fragments in the IOM, and perhaps, judging by its format, style of script, and use of numerous epistolary formu- lae, the only genuine (as opposed to draft) letter. Though it is incomplete and preserves only the, often hyperbolic, formalities which typically appear at the beginning of letters, a good deal of sense can be brought out of the text by comparison with other letter fragments, though unfortunately little in the way of content. It is at least clear that it is a letter from a queen of Ark (ʾrkcʾnch xʾtʾwnh) to a Manichaean ‘teacher’ (mwckʾ). 1 [ s](p)ʾs nkʾβty-pʾzʾn δykh ZY ptškwʾnh 2 [ RBch ʾnwt]y cnn wyspnʾcyw ʾnwtyh msyʾtr ZY cnn 3 [wyspnʾcw ʾʾδy ʾyw γ]wʾncykstr xyδ wyn ZY xyδ wyškyr ʾxšʾnky ptβʾyšcnw 4 [ ] mwckʾ γwβtk nʾm kw 5 [ ](.)ry sʾr 6 cnn xypδ wyn-nmʾn šyr-ʾʾγδch kštrh 7 ʾrkcʾnch xʾtʾwnh ptškwʾnh cnn δwr (zʾyh) 8 [rtβn ](w)ʾnʾkh pδkh wʾβryδ nmʾcyw βrʾym cʾnw ZKn zwrny zwrny 9 cykt pwtʾyšty sʾr nmʾcyw βrʾnt • rtβγ kδʾ šmʾx trtsʾr pr 10 ʾskʾ prn RB(kw ptβ)yw šyrʾkk ẒY βγ wrcyʾ ʾskwδʾ mʾx 11 [xypδ γrʾywh nwšch my](n)ym (mʾx) ms mδy nwr myδ prm zwk 12 [ʾskwym ](.. p)tškwʾnh βrʾyšʾym pʾrZY βγ pr 13 [ ](. .ʾn)w trtsʾr ʾʾγtyt mʾtʾymn 14 [ ]y ʾxšʾnkwʾy βyrtδʾrm rʾmʾnt 15 [ ](.) ʾskwym ywʾr βγ pr mʾx wʾxš 16 [ ]sʾr ʾʾ(γtym)n ZY [..](δ)[..] ʾntʾwxcnʾʾk 17 [ ](k)npy ʾkrty xw(ty) (m)[ ](.y) 18 illegible traces 3 Transliteration convention used are: (xyz) = partially legible letters, [xyz] = completely restored letters, [.] or (.) = one missing or illegible letter. 29 Translation (Lines 1–5) [...in(?)] service (and) submissive, a letter and humble request [...(to the) great hope], greater than every hope, the sight (of whom) is more important than [(that of) every (other) person], excellent, reverend [...] Teacher whose name is praised, [So-and-so]. (Lines 6–7) From your well-wishing, humble Queen of Ark, hopeful (of seeing you), a message from far away. (Lines 8–12) We pay homage to you just as one (pays homage) to the Buddhas of the various periods. If you, Sir, are well and at ease there, Sir, in high fortune and great honor, then we [consider ourselves immortal]. We are well up until the present day [...] (Lines 12–17) We send a message because, Sir, [...] we had come there [...] excellence, I obtained. Always [...] we remain, but, Sir, the news at us [...] we came to [...] and worry [...] became less itself [...] Commentary 1 nkʾβty-pʾzʾn is a compound meaning ‘submissive’, literally ‘of bent (nkʾβty) mind (pʾzʾn)’. That the corresponding abstract noun nkʾβtpʾznkyʾ ‘submissiveness’ is a Manichaean technical term referring to the sixth part of the first cardinal virtue frytʾt ‘love’ could perhaps be taken as another indicator of this document’s Manichaean context. 2–3 ZY cnn [wyspnʾcw ʾʾδy ʾyw γ]wʾncykstr xyδ wyn ZY xyδ wyškyr was paraphrased differently —“seeing you and meeting you face to face is more necessary to me than (every other sight)” — by Sims-Williams (1981, 236), assuming a restoration of something like [wyspnʾcw wyn].